Part 2: Application of Kanaya–Okayama heat source in modelling micro electron beam welding
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A three-dimensional finite element model of micro electron beam welding is developed where the Kanaya–Okayama heat source formulated in Part I of this work is used to represent the electron beam. The large number of process variables is grouped into two non-dimensional parameters, namely, Peclet number and relative beam penetration, and their effect is analysed numerically to arrive at the optimum conditions of microwelding. Based on the minimum heat input of the process, the optimum Peclet number is found to be 100, and the beam penetration is twice that of the weld depth. The optimum parameters obtained using the Kanaya–Okayama heat source model are similar to the previous findings using the exponential decay heat source model; however, the predictions of the temperature field in the solid as a result of microwelding are relatively lower in case of the Kanaya–Okayama heat source model because of the differences in distribution of heat into the condensed matter. The lower weld surface temperatures in microwelding using the electron beam suggest significantly less ablation than in laser beams.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it